Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Musings: On Turkeys, in the Literal and Figurative Sense of the Word

Perusing the cornucopia that is Whole
Foods the other day, I was struck by the variety of turkeys being
sold. Some were touted as organic, others as GMO-free. Some were
fully free-range, while others merely had “access to outdoors.”
Still others were vegetarian-fed, but ostensibly caged, while the
premium birds were labeled “humanely-raised on sustainable family
farms.” A few even had names: Tom.

Whole Foods is where the rich folk
shop, and the per-pound-price — ranging from $2.99 to $4.49 —
reflected the buying power of the clientele.

Meanwhile, in the big box stores and
supermarket chains where the poorer people shop, turkeys were going
for just 49-to-69 cents per pound.

And I thought of a New York Times commentary by Mark Bittman, about “don't ask how to feed the 9
billion,” just eliminate poverty, and then they can buy what they
need, or feed themselves — through traditional farming only, of
course. (Never mind that so many traditional farmers are literally
dirt poor.)

And I wondered, so are we going to help
everyone get wealthy enough to afford those $4.49-per-pound
humanely-raised-on-sustainable-family-farm-turkeys? Which, in a just
and righteous society, is how our meat should be produced.

Or will they only be lifted from
poverty to the place where they can afford the mass-produced, caged,
GMO-and-whatevahs-fed, 69-cents-per-pound turkeys? Which would
seemingly only increase demand for factory-farmed meat, since animal
protein is typically one of the first foods folks want when they can
afford it, as evidenced by the skyrocketing demand for meat in China.

And if GMO crops are suddenly banished,
as as some would like, what would that do to the price of food —
the grain-fed meat and other basic commodities that fill the grocery
stores — and would people who are now on the edge fall into
poverty, simply trying to eat?

Or do we tell those in the developing
nations that they must curb their desire for animal protein, become
vegans, just as they must curb their use of cheap, carbon-producing
fuel, so as to help save the world while the West keeps on gorging?

Bittner ended his piece with:

Our slogan should not be “let’s
feed the world,” but “let’s end poverty.”

That sounds great, but can Earth possibly sustain 9 billion people living the Western
ideal of prosperity, or even non-poverty? Because it's not just about
food. It's about protein, energy, stuff.

Meanwhile, on Kauai, where nearly all
the food is imported, at great carbon and cash cost, Hawaii Dairy
Farms has emerged triumphant, with building permits in hand, for its
contested dairy at Mahaulepu. The Department of Health signed off on
the proposal, despite warnings of grave environmental consequences by
those who prefer resorts, condos and shopping centers to agriculture.

HDF, which wants to use the Kauai dairy
as a pilot project to see if its rotational pasture method of raising
milk cows can be replicated across the state, won an important
victory in being able to proceed without having to do an
environmental assessment— a requirement that could prove
economically unfeasible and burdensome if it became a precedent for
doing agriculture on ag lands.

Still, to placate those who have fought
the dairy to the point of filing suit, HDF will voluntarily complete
an EIS, which will be submitted to the DOH for review. It will
explore the full potential of the farm — the original proposal of
2,000 cows, rather than the modification to 650-699 cows announced in
July.

In an announcement sent to those of us
who haven't talked shit about the dairy, and thus are considered part
of the “ohana,” HDF spokeswoman Amy Hennessey noted:

It is disappointing to witness the
continued misinformation and threats made by dairy opponents against
something many local people, including the ag community, support but
may be hesitant to speak out about in the face of aggressive
opposition. Our hope is that our whole community can come to
some peace about how agriculture, residents and the visitor industry
can live in harmony so that we can create a bright, sustainable and
secure future for Kauai.

It's good to have such hopes, though
the sad reality is that opponents likely will not be placated even by
the EIS they demanded.

Amy linked to an article on agweb about
efforts to revitalize dairy farming in Hawaii, which just 30 years
supplied all its own milk. But when imports began in 1985, the state lost its sustainable dairy industry and now ships in most of its
milk from California, for a consumer price of about $6 per gallon. The article
referenced a Star-Advertiser commentary by Kyle Datta of Ulupono
Initiative, who wrote:

If we allow a resort on reclassified
agricultural lands on Kauai to demand buffer zones miles away from
its property – affecting even Important Agricultural Lands –
there are serious implications to Oahu and Maui, where development
and agriculture are in closer proximity. Most of the prime
agricultural lands in these counties will vanish.

Mason Chock has been named chair of the
planning committee, while seed company-hater Gary Hooser is vice
chair. But Arryl Kaneshiro, KipuKai Kualii and Ross Kagawa are also
on that committee, comprising a majority that can keep Mason and Gary
in check.

KipuKai will assume chairmanship of economic development and intergovernmental relations, where Gary pushed Bill 2491 and was maneuvering to create a
ground water management area for the Puna district, which includes
Lihue. Gary is now in charge only of the Public Safety committee.

Ross is chair of the public works
committee, while JoAnn Yukimura will lead housing &
transportation. Arryl will head up the budget committee — arguably the most important on the Council. Quite a plum for a
freshman Councilman, though it's not unreasonable since he is an
accountant by trade.

There's been a lot of talk about
possible conflicts of interest, what with Arryl working for Grove
Farm and Gary pushing the anti-GMO agenda of his HAPA organization.
I've done some research into that, which I'll get into in another
post, since this one has gone on long enough.

Instead, I'll leave you with a short video clip that offers an example of failing spectacularly, but not miserably, since a
reader took me to task the other day for asserting that an anti-GMO candidate had
“failed miserably” in her election bid, spending $50,000 only to come in 11th out of 12th.

4 comments:

Haha - "vegetarian-fed turkeys," and "access to outdoors," indeed! Crazy that we have such a gullible, elitist bunch that actually believe this stuff! You're correct, Joan, that "vegetarian-fed" essentially means that they have no real access to forage (such as outdoors where there are bugs, such as beetles, lizards, centipedes, grasshoppers,grubs, worms, etc.). Essentially, these turkeys are confined in huge turkey houses and fed grain (as in vegetarian) - no different than how turkeys are produced commercially. So, what a nice value-added product WholeFoods gets for simply labeling it "vegetarian-fed." According to Organic labeling standards, saying "access to pasture" does not verify that animals actually do go out to pasture.